Advertisement

Advertisement

Clean air strategy fails to tackle traffic

By Mick Hamer

ON THE day that Britain’s environment minister John Gummer predicted that
he would “banish smog” by 2005, the 24-hour forecast was for poor air quality
over much of eastern Britain. The forecast turned out to be wrong. And so could
Gummer’s prediction, because critics say the strategy does not tackle the main
source of urban pollution—traffic.

Launching the government’s National Air Quality Strategy last week, Gummer
said that it would effectively eliminate “summer and winter smog episodes” by
2005. “What we do when we banish smog is to ensure consistently clean air
throughout the country,” he said.

The strategy lays down air quality standards for eight different classes of
pollution, including ozone, nitrogen dioxide and PM10, tiny particles less than
10 micrometres in diameter. These three pollutants are the main components of
smog.

But, says Tim Brown of the National Society for Clean Air, the strategy does
not deal with “how to get people out of their cars”. Tony Bosworth, Friends of
the Earth’s air pollution campaigner, agrees. He says the strategy does not
tackle the growth of traffic and points out that there has been “some slippage”
of the government’s targets for cleaning up pollution in the past few
months.

Advertisement

The pollution standards, described by Gummer as “attainable—but as
tough as possible”, largely follow the recommendations of the government’s
Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (This Week, 18 November 1995, p 6). But
the department of the Environment (DoE) has lowered the standards for one of the
most pressing pollution problems, PM10, which comes mostly from diesel vehicle
exhausts. These particles kill as many as 10 000 people a year in Britain
(“Dying from too much dust”, New Scientist, 12 March 1994, p 12).
According to David Pearce of University College, London, a former government
adviser, sickness, deaths and lost working days caused by particulate pollution
cost the country £17 billion a year.

The expert panel recommended a standard for PM10 of 50 micrograms per cubic
metre of air. When the DoE produced its draft strategy in June, it said this
standard could be exceeded on just two nights a year.

Bosworth says this was not unreasonable because of the Guy Fawkes night
effect. “Particle levels are bound to go over on bonfire night.” However, the
strategy now says that the 50-microgram limit can be exceeded on four days a
year.

But PM10 may not be the best measure of particulate pollution. Both the
expert panel and the US Environmental Protection Agency believe that PM2.5,
particles with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometres, may be a better
indicator of the dust people actually inhale.

In May, Roy Harrison, chairman of the government’s Quality of Urban Air
Review Group, said that the group was coming round to the view that PM2.5 might
be a better measure. The strategy document ignores the distinction between
different types of particles.

Gummer defended the strategy’s failure to clamp down on traffic. “I’m not
opposed to motor cars. I’m opposed to dirty, polluting motor cars,” he said. His
strategy relies heavily on local authorities to eliminate pollution hot spots.
All local authorities will have to conduct a review of air pollution. In places
where pollution is bad they will have to carry out a detailed assessment and
then produce an air quality management plan.

The DoE’s original intention was that local authorities would start this
process by 1 April 1997. However, Brown believes that timetable is likely to
slip: under the Environment Act local authorities must take the DoE’s guidance
into account, but the DoE has yet to produce its guidance.

Britain’s cash-strapped councils doubt that they would be able to clamp down
on pollution without extra money. For local authorities with severe pollution
problems the costs could be quite high, says Brown.

“We have already told the local authorities that we will not see them out of
pocket,” said Gummer. But the government will not tell councils how much they
will give them until November, when it announces the rate support grant. This
grant is traditionally dominated by the need to curb public expenditure.

The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which represents councils in the
majority of Britain’s urban areas, gives the air pollution strategy a qualified
welcome. “But where’s the dosh?” asks a spokeswoman.

Environmentalists also point out that the government has delayed an
announcement that would bring its pollution warnings into line with the new air
quality standards. The strategy document lays down a standard for ozone of 50
parts per billion averaged over eight hours. But the government describes air
quality as “poor” only when the level hits 90 parts per billion.

Britain had a minor episode of summertime smog the weekend before Gummer’s
announcement. Bosworth says that on the Sunday, 40 out of the country’s 47 ozone
monitors were recording hourly readings of more than 50 parts per billion. But
according to AEA Technology, which monitors air quality for the government, only
one monitor hit 90 parts per billion and prompted a poor air warning. A DoE
spokesman says that the document reconciling the descriptions of air quality and
the new standards will be published later this year.